Sehri Oh Oh1
Professor John Rogers
ENG150: Literary Traditions
8 April 2024
Self-preservation on the Tragic Heroes’ Main Objective inCrime and PunishmentandHamlet
The selected texts,Crime and PunishmentandHamlet, are both works in which self-preservation
plays a significant role in the tragic heroes’ decision to pursue their respective main objectives. However,
through differences in attitudes towards suicide and self-preservation’s relation to inaction, the works are
able to provide self-preservation with different plot-relative roles. InCrime and Punishment,
self-preservation functions as a plot catalyst due to Raskolnikov’s willingness to live and the alignment of
self-preservation with his main objective, whilst in Hamlet, it functions as a plot deterrent due to Hamlet’s
ambivalence towards living and the conflict of self-preservation with his main objective. For the sake of
this essay, the “main objective” of the tragic hero will be defined as the goal of the character, which, when
attained, results in the resolution of the main conflict and plot, which is then, by definition, a confession
to the police, and the murder of Claudius, respectively.
To begin, along with the choice of the pursuit of the main objective and inaction (that is,
avoidance of the main objective), both characters contemplate suicide as a third option. However, the
general attitude of the tragic heroes’ in regards to living and suicide differs significantly. InCrime and
Punishment, Raskolnikov’s strong desire to live causes the removal of suicide as an option, instead
causing a binary choice (confession or inaction), whilst Hamlet’s ambivalence towards living maintains a
contemplation of suicide throughout the play.
Throughout the novel, Raskolnikov is emphasized as being unwilling and unable to commit
suicide. In the first—and only that is directly narrated from Raskolnikov’s perspective—instance in which
Raskolnikov attempts suicide by jumping off the Voznesensky bridge, he witnesses another woman jump
off the bridge and feels disgusted, calling the act “foul. . .not worth it,” then further mutters to himself, “I
couldn’t.” Even further on in the novel, Porfiry, when asking Raskolnikov to leave a note if he were to
choose commit suicide, calls the possibility “an absurd proposition” that he is only mentioning “just in
, Oh2
case,” as he believes Raskolnikov is “quite incapable of it” (439). Further, Raskolnikov is outright
described as“too eager to live” by Svidrigailov (481). Similarly, in the second and last attempt, which
Raskolnikov tells Sonia, Sonia attributes his inability as proof that he “believe[s] in life,” too much so to
be able to kill himself. Thus, the elimination of suicide as a potential course of action limits Raskolnikov
to the options of pursuing the main objective or inaction.
In contrast, Hamlet is contemplative of suicide throughout the play, demonstrating a disdain for
living and an appeal in death, maintaining it as a possible course of action throughout. Even before
learning of the truth of his father’s death, Hamlet demonstrates disdain towards the state of living, such as
exclaiming: “How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable / Seem to me all the uses of this world!” (1.2.
136-138), or comparing life to "an unweeded garden . . .[with] things rank and gross in nature" (1.2. 135).
He also states the merits of death, which is the ability to end: “The heartache and the thousand natural
shocks/ That flesh is heir to,” and describes it as something “devoutly to be wish'd" (3.1. 62-63). Thus,
both characters attempt suicide, but Raskolnikov, with a strong will to live, is unable to, and hence his
choices are reduced to the binary choice of the main objective and inaction, whilst Hamlet, who is
ambivalent towards living, continuously contemplates suicide and maintains it as an option.
Another difference in choice is the relation of inaction to self preservation, which then influences
the main objective’s relation to it also. Raskolnikov’s inaction goes against self-preservation and thus
causes self-preservation to align with his main objective, while Hamlet’s inaction aligns with
self-preservation and hence conflicts against his main objective.
For Raskolnikov, inaction goes against self-preservation as it is implied to be accompanied by permanent
self-imposed suffering due to guilt and illness, eventually leading to suicide. Sonia’s first reaction upon
realizing that Raskolnikov is a murderer is to exclaim: “Why, why did you take this upon yourself!”
acknowledging Raskolnikov’s self-imposed suffering. Additionally, when persuading Raskolnikov to give
himself up, she states that Raskolnikov will “wear [himself] out” otherwise “to bear such torment” (401),
implying that confession is the only way to be relieved of the current form of suffering he is under.
Regarding illness, the idea that “the act of carrying out a crime is always accompanied by illness. . .”
Professor John Rogers
ENG150: Literary Traditions
8 April 2024
Self-preservation on the Tragic Heroes’ Main Objective inCrime and PunishmentandHamlet
The selected texts,Crime and PunishmentandHamlet, are both works in which self-preservation
plays a significant role in the tragic heroes’ decision to pursue their respective main objectives. However,
through differences in attitudes towards suicide and self-preservation’s relation to inaction, the works are
able to provide self-preservation with different plot-relative roles. InCrime and Punishment,
self-preservation functions as a plot catalyst due to Raskolnikov’s willingness to live and the alignment of
self-preservation with his main objective, whilst in Hamlet, it functions as a plot deterrent due to Hamlet’s
ambivalence towards living and the conflict of self-preservation with his main objective. For the sake of
this essay, the “main objective” of the tragic hero will be defined as the goal of the character, which, when
attained, results in the resolution of the main conflict and plot, which is then, by definition, a confession
to the police, and the murder of Claudius, respectively.
To begin, along with the choice of the pursuit of the main objective and inaction (that is,
avoidance of the main objective), both characters contemplate suicide as a third option. However, the
general attitude of the tragic heroes’ in regards to living and suicide differs significantly. InCrime and
Punishment, Raskolnikov’s strong desire to live causes the removal of suicide as an option, instead
causing a binary choice (confession or inaction), whilst Hamlet’s ambivalence towards living maintains a
contemplation of suicide throughout the play.
Throughout the novel, Raskolnikov is emphasized as being unwilling and unable to commit
suicide. In the first—and only that is directly narrated from Raskolnikov’s perspective—instance in which
Raskolnikov attempts suicide by jumping off the Voznesensky bridge, he witnesses another woman jump
off the bridge and feels disgusted, calling the act “foul. . .not worth it,” then further mutters to himself, “I
couldn’t.” Even further on in the novel, Porfiry, when asking Raskolnikov to leave a note if he were to
choose commit suicide, calls the possibility “an absurd proposition” that he is only mentioning “just in
, Oh2
case,” as he believes Raskolnikov is “quite incapable of it” (439). Further, Raskolnikov is outright
described as“too eager to live” by Svidrigailov (481). Similarly, in the second and last attempt, which
Raskolnikov tells Sonia, Sonia attributes his inability as proof that he “believe[s] in life,” too much so to
be able to kill himself. Thus, the elimination of suicide as a potential course of action limits Raskolnikov
to the options of pursuing the main objective or inaction.
In contrast, Hamlet is contemplative of suicide throughout the play, demonstrating a disdain for
living and an appeal in death, maintaining it as a possible course of action throughout. Even before
learning of the truth of his father’s death, Hamlet demonstrates disdain towards the state of living, such as
exclaiming: “How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable / Seem to me all the uses of this world!” (1.2.
136-138), or comparing life to "an unweeded garden . . .[with] things rank and gross in nature" (1.2. 135).
He also states the merits of death, which is the ability to end: “The heartache and the thousand natural
shocks/ That flesh is heir to,” and describes it as something “devoutly to be wish'd" (3.1. 62-63). Thus,
both characters attempt suicide, but Raskolnikov, with a strong will to live, is unable to, and hence his
choices are reduced to the binary choice of the main objective and inaction, whilst Hamlet, who is
ambivalent towards living, continuously contemplates suicide and maintains it as an option.
Another difference in choice is the relation of inaction to self preservation, which then influences
the main objective’s relation to it also. Raskolnikov’s inaction goes against self-preservation and thus
causes self-preservation to align with his main objective, while Hamlet’s inaction aligns with
self-preservation and hence conflicts against his main objective.
For Raskolnikov, inaction goes against self-preservation as it is implied to be accompanied by permanent
self-imposed suffering due to guilt and illness, eventually leading to suicide. Sonia’s first reaction upon
realizing that Raskolnikov is a murderer is to exclaim: “Why, why did you take this upon yourself!”
acknowledging Raskolnikov’s self-imposed suffering. Additionally, when persuading Raskolnikov to give
himself up, she states that Raskolnikov will “wear [himself] out” otherwise “to bear such torment” (401),
implying that confession is the only way to be relieved of the current form of suffering he is under.
Regarding illness, the idea that “the act of carrying out a crime is always accompanied by illness. . .”
